warhammer40kfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:MercWithMouth/MontyPython
= Now, Let's Just Take a Step Back and Go at It Slow, For a Moment... = Ooo-kay... SO! Where do I start...? Well, I guess the obvious place would be the Forge of Souls. Montonius, I spent over 90minutes drafting that article in MSNotepad. For what it's worth, one of my motivations for creating the article was to soothe things with you a bit. Fewer than 3minutes after I clicked Publish, and while I was in the midst of adding categories (using other similar articles as a guide), and literally ten seconds after I started loading my Talk page in a new window to read the messages you apparently were leaving me... well, I gotta say! Upon seeing the page blanked, I was just a little bit... 'surprised'. Montonious, whatever else might be at play here, you know that was a well-composed article by absolutely any standard. http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20130422-2xb3-541kb I'm sorry, but to put it bluntly, "does not meet wiki quality standards" simply is not true. I characterize the 'stated reason for deletion' as such because, if you simply wanted to get the deletion over with quickly, you would have stated 'see your talk page' or have chosen another stated reason that would more clearly reflect 'you were trying to save time.' I've been working with wiki and similar GUIs for more than a decade. I am fairly confident in saying that I 'know what I'm doing'. Consequently... I do not need you to make any formatting changes, leave long, unnecessary comments or suggestions on talk pages or anything of that ilk. If you have a suggestion or an idea, leave it on the relevant admin or moderator's personal talk page. Save commentary for the forum. What I need from you as a new editor, and the only thing I need you to do, is check for typos, add new information if you have it that is properly sourced and page numbered (same for pictures), and fix obvious grammatical errors if you find them. Respectfully, I know for a fact that those remarks are very much out of bounds. Consider, if you will, that adding categories to articles (as distinguished from creating "new" categories) can not be asserted to be restricted to: Categories are only to be added to this wiki by Admins and Shas'o'Kais. Why is this...? http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20130422-nxsl-67kb Because the Wiki is actually giving out 'awards' as a form of incentive' to prompt editors to add categories. I'm also rather inclined to assert, very respectfully, that proclaiming that "edits must not be carried out on the basis of taste" is not your decision to make. Nor should it be. http://my.jetscreenshot.com/2306/20130422-lhpa-41kb Montonious, any wikiedit that has a substantive dimension to it will be related to matters of taste. Ergo, when a wiki-user first creates an article, his edits do in fact rise to matters of taste. Likewise, please understand that the very statement that "edits should not be made on the basis of taste" is, in fact, a matter of taste: it automatically defers to the older edit's perspective on taste over the newer edit. Would not such a decision effected by fiat violate the "administrator or moderator is not above the law" standard? In order for such a standard to be at all meaningful, it necessarily entails each editor receiving equal protection and treatment under the rules and therefore -- and please understand that while I understand that these remarks constitute a high order of disagreement, I do not intend to convey any disrespect or resentment -- each editor's perspective on taste is to be judged equally to the extent that reasonableness allows. This in mind, the last-in-time principle regarding edits not only fulfills this standard, it is also fair. Incidentally, this is the common practice on other wikis. Lastly, without getting too much into Adeptus Litigios issues, you are compelled and perhaps required to not exact a micromanegerial approach. The basis for this is ultimately fairness. Second, it also is based on the Wikia TOS. And THIRD... it is based on the limited usage rights spelled out by the original DigitalWiki patents a bit over ten years ago. To that end, I will also mention as a sidenote, that the 'strongarm' tactics that Lexicanicum allegedly employed is the past was likely not legal, as even if it is privately owned, hosted, and operated, it is still bound to the original limited, patent rights granted, that are relevant in regards to derivative wiki-systems that are in the public stream of commerce. Though, I will admit, many courts would likely not arrive at such a determination absent it being pointed out by one of the litigants. Though, if California case law and venue applied to Lexicanicum, as it does to Wikia, there would be the added dimension to consider regarding impermissibility of arbitrary discrimination under the California Civil Rights Statute. I apologize for the length of these remarks. And believe me... I could go on for a lot longer. But, these are important matters that I am bringing up and I think you do know, in your heart, that some of your methods could... 'stand to be polished.' Please just think over these matters for now. While there might (well, actually ARE) be additional courses of action available to me at present, I simply don't want to do that. Your work, effort, and dedication to the wiki is EXEMPLARY and I shudder at the thought of you ever feeling "discouraged" as regards keeping up the good work. I unquestionably speak for the entire Warhammer fan base when I say this: : Montonious, you are a global treasure and a boon to every person with an Internet connection and any interest in Warhammer 40k. I am going to step out for a few days-- if only to better enable you to think about these concerns I have delineated and (very respectfully) mistakes you have made. AH! One other thing... Please read this. It's only one or two paragraphs. http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Gamemaster#How_do_I_shot_GM? The Emperor Protects.